I don't believe same sex marriage issues are the same as civil rights issues to which it is so often compared. Some gay rights activists love to compare their struggle to the struggle for interracial marriage, but it is not the same thing. There is no fundamental difference between a black man and a white man. There are great fundamental differences between men and women.
Defining the basic social unit in our culture as marriage between a man and a woman I believe it's better for our society. I am looking at it from a God point of view. I don't like the idea of taking away anyone's rights. I believe we all have the rights to go to hell if we want to. God call that right Free Will. I am not saying if two people of the same sex marry they are going to hell. No! but if they chose to go they should have the same right to hell as people of the opposite sex does.
Marriage between anyone and everyone was never an inalienable right (you may not marry your sister, your father, or your dog... or someone under the age of 16 for that matter). No value system in history, whether Christian or otherwise, has prohibited interracial marriage; but every value system has discouraged same-sex marriage. Even societies that encouraged and celebrated homosexuality, reserved marriage for male-female relationships.
Gays and lesbians have the right to live with and love whomever they choose. They are even free to marry, if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex. If they want to live with someone of the same sex, they have -----. When I here the word marriage I think about man an woman. So to me that's marriage. Maybe the people of same sex marriage should think about adopting a new word for there union that has not been established by society.
The problem seems to be more about the word marriage than anything else. Under that word I believe same sex couple should have all the rights that the majority has. Me Ann Brock being part of the majority does not have the right to "force" my values on the minority; but neither does the minority have the right to force its values on me.
Thursday Open Thread
-
Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage To Make GOP Protest
Appear Bigger The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
1 hour ago
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
31 comments:
Outstanding article as usual!
I agree with you 100%
Our morals are declining in this world. And look at how aggressive and violent homosexuals become when confronted.
Hello there Ann!
Thanks for sharing your viewpoints.
I do not FORCE my values on the entire world but at the same time WE ARE witnesses for Christ and we ARE commissioned to go forth in the world!
I do not believe that everyone in America should be FORCED BY LAWS to be Christians and the Bible is not read or respected by this nation because America is not a Christian nation. America is a heathen nation and there really is NO denying that when we look at what "sells" in this country.
Still...gays and lesbians are going to choose to be united as one in the same manner that they have seen heterosexuals being united as one....ceremonially and legally.
Am I on some rampage to stop gays and lesbians from marrying like some Christian groups are? No.
There is a DIFFERENCE between teaching the Gospel and ramming it down everyone's throat...I (try to) teach it....and I (strive to) live it.
During the recent national election resulting in Obama as the new President elect, propositions were supported and passed in four states that would require that states constitution to be amended by defining marriage as being exclusively between and male and female. African-American voters from those states voted overwhelmingly in support of those propositions even though Obama himself clearly expressed open support of civil-unions between same sex couples. Considering that African-Americans have fought so hard and so long for civil rights, it is totally bewildering that we would vote overwhelmingly to take away another groups established civil liberty to enter into a civil union. I, being a non-theist, humanist, have a perspective on religion quite a bit different that those held traditionally by other African-Americans. I feel that the bible both literally and figuratively, has been and remains among the most effective weapons of mass destruction with the others being the Koran and the Torah. The African-Americans support of an initiative to actually take away one of another groups civil liberty in the name of religiosity (i.e. christianity, or islamic dogma), after having fought so long to have our own civil liberties recognized, is an absolute testament to the destructive nature of organized religion. How is it that we've been robbed of our ability to see that the world's most egregious offenses against humanity have been committed within the pretext of a church/state merger. Although it may seem to the contrary, I am not against Black folks believing what they chose to believe in, even if I think that it's to our detriment. What I am against is Black people becoming so self-righteous, that we see nothing wrong with imposing our religious beliefs, in a political context, on another group of people who may or may not subscribe to that same belief system. Black people, it is by no coincidence that among the first thing European conquerors gave indigenous peoples were bibles both before and after committing wholesale slaughter of those indigenous people who resisted the efforts of succeeding their land and being converted to christianity. Also, it is by no coincidence that the most well known period of time in Europe where there existed a merger between church and state is referred to as the Dark-Ages. People, read some history. You don't have to go too far back. Consider that last 8 years. President Bush's rhetoric was commonly packed with religious rhetoric, which should have been an embarrassment to the so many christian, African-American voters who with the objective of imposing their religious beliefs onto the mainstream, were tricked into voting that idiot. Those who fail to know it are destined to repeat it. By the way, if you sincerely wish to live in a society where there exist no division between church and state perhaps you should consider relocating to Iraq or Afghanistan where church dictates political policy.
Ms. BlackWomenblowthetrumpet,
You advance the premise about being "commissioned" to go forth in the world...", as though "...nothing more nothing less." That same premise was, has been, and continues to be used by religious figures, christians and muslims alike, to go out and convert non-believers, which inherently implies that their (non-believers) belief system is flawed or by some significant measure, less valid than the christian paradigm. Your perspective is nothing less that a form of bigotry, religious bigotry if you will, which is not at all as innocent or benign is you seem to make it out to be.
And yes, you are forcing your value onto others if you in fact vote in political elections using your religious beliefs to guide your vote. In allowing your vote to reflect your religious beliefs you ARE either knowingly or unknowingly attempting to impose you belief system onto other people who may be subject to the results of that vote.
Whether or not America, as a country, is a christian nation is immaterial to the fact that religion dogma should not be considered in determining laws or legislation in a Democratic society. The fact that you believe you are "commissioned" to do something or another dictates that you go into the world and "lead" (i.e. convert as many people as possible to Christ. Now if in theory you were able to accomplish that task, wouldn't that likely change our Democracy to a Theocracy in which religious dogma shapes laws and legislation? If you are not someone who feels that your religious beliefs dictate that you support any initiative to prohibit gay civil unions then I really have no issue with you.
However, if you study and understand world history you will find once again that Christianity, the religion, has established the pretext in which many of the world's greatest atrocities against mankind have been committed.
Examples include: The Inquisition, Genocide against Native North, Central, and South Americans, and the Atlantic Slave Trade.
Hey!
I'm on the side of Gay marriage. The states in the U.S. did ban interracial marriage until Loving v. the State of Virginia. I think that was because society looked at us as less than human.
I'm a Christian, so how do I get over what Paul says and what Leviticus says? I look at what Jesus said. He never once mentioned homosexuality. If it was as important as we make itout to be, surely the Son of God would have said something about it.
I've met some Gay couples whose love and commitment to each other has blown me away. And I know too many married people who are on their second and third marriages when God says that divorce is detestable. So how can we divorce like it ain't nothing but have a heart attack over tow grown folks loving each other?
Just my two cents. Good dialogue.
Great dialogue. This is what we will have to do, talk it out. Yes, there are many sites going up about doing away with Divorce, to protect the sanctity of marriage. Yeah, I can see all the folks who don't want me to marry, voting for no divorce, regardless of what the bible says.
I could argue history, the scriptures and morality and choice but I won't go there. I am more interested in my civil rights. And yes, it is the same as civil rights for blacks. My rights as a gay citizen should not depend on anyones religious point of view anymore than my rights as a black citizen should.
Ann you write, "There is no fundamental difference between a black man and a white man. There are great fundamental differences between men and women." I want you to tell me the fundamental difference in your love for your spouse and my love for mine. What are the differences in your years of support, caring, sharing, trust, laughter, tears, hard times, and good times with your spouse and my 29 years with mine. I appreciate that you are for gay rights but want to covet the word marriage. We just have to keep talking.
@Lynn thanks for your comment as always.
@Lisa thanks for your comment and I too believe that every America deserve the same rights.
@AdoreBlkWm thanks for your comment and welcome. First, off I don't speak for any other African America.
I am only speaking for me because I believe I will be judge one day for my action and mine alone.
I am a 51 year old black woman who grew up in The Old Black Church which is total different from today's church. I will agree that The Old Black Church have shape the views and values of many people weather right or wrong.
The old church taught that it's wrong for two people of the same-sex to marry so on election day you might see people voting according to what they were taught and believe.
And, as a black woman it offends me, and I know it offends a lot of other black people. For gay activist to say it's similar to the civil rights movement it's just not true.
First, fighting for gay rights is in no way, shape, or form similar to the fight that black people went through in America. It wasn’t until later that we were actually considered “people” in this country.
A gay person has never been denied the right to vote, attend a school, or drink at a water fountain.
Second, if “marriage” is an institution created by religion, which a lot of people are saying it is. To me they should be the one to define it.
@Kellybelle thanks for your comment and I am for the rights of all people.
@Jackie thanks for your comment but, let me make my self clear. From, reading your blog for over a year I believe you and Monica are one out standing couple. It has nothing to do with the fact that you both are the same sex.
From reading your blog it seems as if you and her have a great friendship. You have been together for a long time. which I think is wonderful. I don't in any way think gay people should not be together but it's the word "marriage" that I think is the problem.
Respectful dialogue is good. I believe the church will see more persecution for its stand on homosexual behavior and marriage. As a single believer there are several things the bible warns me not to do that i would like to do. Yet, when i see the consequences of such behavior i know God warned me thru the inspired word of his servants BECAUSE he loves me.
I do not think once homosexuals receive legal marital rights that will be the end of it. I see a drive for a society that no longer respects boundaries of gender i.e., shared bathrooms, showers, mother and father removed from books and legal documents, etc... Once marriages are no longer defined between man/woman what is to stop polygamy from becoming the next marriage definition. Marriage will become obsolete as we know it. Civil unions allow the same rights as marriage. What is it about the word "marriage" that validates the relationship more than "civil union"? They both allow the couple to live legally happily with each other? Heck, there are some heterosexuals that have no business marrying, birthing babies or in civil unions.
Interesting - but I love the part where you say you don't have the right to force your values! That speaks volumes!
What Darius says is right on! It's a step further than some will take.
Energize,
If gay marriage is allowed, what will stop polygamy or marrying animals or children or whatever else? Well, how about common sense.
Also, civil unions DO NOT afford the same rights as marriage. Far from it. Civil unions have different limits depending on where they are enacted. This includes NOT being recognized by a court of law or in all contracts that are automatic under marriage laws. Civil unions are NOT recognized by the United States Government, period. So, no Social Security or survivor benefits for my spouse, eventho we pay into that fund just like straight couples. Our money goes to you and your spouse. We get nothing. That's equal? Separate but equal has never, ever been equal. That's the point of the separation.
You ask, what is it about the word marriage? What is it for you? Why would you assume it would be different for me? That's what I mean by the dehumanization of gay people.
Civil unions have different limits depending on where they are enacted.
- didn't know that
- I have watched documentaries on polygamist camps. Trust me, they believe their lifestyle is common sense.
Just another note. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between spouses and it is universally recognized. Civil union protection does not extend beyond it's jurisdiction, (city or state) and private companies are not bond to honor them at all. So get civil unioned in Vermont but it means nothing anywhere else.
Marriage has over 1,000 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, rights to include a spouse on health care etc. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections. So, we have to have separate health care coverage, file separate tax returns, pay expensive legal fees to have wills to "try" to assure hospital visitation and inheritance rights. Even with legal documents, a cousin can come in and trump wills. Why? Because they are blood and we are not. I've seen this happen. It's heartbreaking.
Hopefully this will help you understand that gay people are not trying to take what's yours, or mess up anything. We are only trying to have what any human being is entitled to.
JJBrock
I understand your logic and completely understand from where you're coming. It's true that people, specifically African-Americans, will vote based on feelings. Unfortunately however our feelings often tend to lead us to very flawed decisions. As a matter of fact, we as humans, often make the poorest, destructive decisions when we are impassioned. As the world grows more complex, it is imperative that we as humans approach the choices we have to make with a levelheaded logical perspective. For instance, you advance the notion that gay-marriage should not be compared to the civil rights movement for African-Americans. The reason you feel this way is because your upbringing taught you that homosexuality is wrong. However, if you looked at it from a logical perspective, you have to acknowledge that homosexuals have been denied employment, denied housing, murdered, physically violated and discriminated against in just about every other way a person can be discriminated against. If you researched to any small degree, you would easily be able to substantiate this. I agree with you about one thing, that being that I am currently unaware of any gay person ever being denied the right to vote because of their sexual preference, which however does not mean that it has never happened. Now they are being denied what is a fundamental right of every citizen based on their sexual preference, which by definition makes it a "civil rights" rights issue. Now just because they may not have suffered only a minute fraction of the same injustices African-American have suffered, doesn't mean that gay-marriage in not a civil-rights issue nor does it invalidate the fact that there are major similarities between the gay-rights movement and the civil-rights movement. The first being a subset of the other. Having work as a law enforcement officer as well as in the criminal justice system for several years I know personally that in the judicial process, participants are ordered to leave their feelings outside the courtroom otherwise the complete judicial process may be jeopardized through either a mistrial or a wrongful conviction. Being a black male I believe as I am sure you do that most wrongful convictions of African-American males was do not based on facts but instead on the way some racist juror felt about black men. Based on you sense of reason, is there any assertion I've made that's not sound?
Regarding “marriage” being a religious institution, I agree with you 100% but with one nuance. Because marriage is a religious institution, it should either be left within the church, having no legal significance or it's religious significance should be ignored when dealt with in a legal context. Because of the separation between church and state, it is unconstitutional to impose religious doctrine in a legal context. Aside from how you might feel about my arguement, is my logic sound or flawed. The church cannot claim to have a copyright on the institution of marriage and have it enforced by the state… it's simply unconstitutional.
Regarding the civil rights movement being compared to the gay rights movement, for me, a black gay woman, I find it difficult to tell you which has caused me the most pain. I certainly know the differences, but to measure worthiness based on a suffering scale, is just wrong. First of all, the scale most people use for gay bigotry is tilted by biased attitudes and lack of knowledge. Even today in 2008 with laws on the books, there are places where gay folks know they BETTER stay in the closet or lose their jobs. Even slaves were allowed to "jump the broom" (I love that) it wasn't legal but they were allowed to have a family circle. I can't even tell you the importance of the intangible societal merits of being able to be "married". You all take this important support for granted.
Energize,
It sounds like your concerns may be coming from blind fear. Many of the arguments/concerns you raise were the exact same argument/concerns raised against allowing inter-racial marriages and yet once those bans were removed none of the horrible things you said came to fruition nor did the world come to an end as some would warn. Why does someone receiving full acknowledgement of their civil liberties as a citizen have to come at the expense of those who subscribe to the Christian faith? What support do you have that shows that any of the terrible things you are concerned about will occur. What support do you have that show that there is any connection between gay-marriage and shared bathrooms, which considering the current state of affairs in this country is a non-issue, believe me. Contrary to popular belief gay-marriage is not the biggest threat to the institution of marriage, younger people simply not wanting to get married is the biggest threat to marriage. Studies/polls have shown that as black females surpass black men in financial stability, progressively fewer are deciding to get married and see marriage as an option or complication rather than a necessity. So based on those findings perhaps we should pass a law saying that women can only make as much as 50% of a man's earnings for the same jobs that way women will be much more inclined to get married based on simple necessity. Perhaps we should pass a law saying that females can only acquire health insurance through a male spouse? That will really drive up the marriage rates. Both suggestion of course morally reprehensible but I hoping you get the point I am trying to make. If you're going to establish a cause/effect relationship between two events, there has to be some concrete evidence that the two events are irreversibly interrelated, like marriage and finance. We've got to try to start basing these types of decisions in our society on reason rather than fear.
Almost forgot, you mention that the "Church will see more persecution..." Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that Gays will see more persecution at the hands of Christians since they, not the church are the ones being denied rights based on religious dogma which historically has been the case. More groups have suffered persecution at the hands of the church than the other way around. To cast the church as being persecuted is a huge misrepresentation as well as a misuse of the word "persecute". I can site countless historical events to illustrate my point if you’d like.
Jackie,
Excellent point you made regarding Energizer's arguments. Well taken.
BlackWomenBlowthetrumpet,
If there was anything I misunderstood regarding any of your postings please correct me and help me grow beyond any flawed understanding you think I have. In addition, if any of my "assumptions" are "ignorant", then please point out exactly which ones.
"Re-read my comment and then read all of your ignorant assumptions about what YOU THINK I have said." BlackWomenBlowthetrumpet
Your posting which you removed from the forum discussion doesn't display a very Christian attitude does it. There goes those feelings feelings again.
@adoreblkwm "It sounds like your concerns may be coming from blind fear."
That is your assumption. As the GLBT movement proceed there has been efforts to remove mother/father from books and hospital documents. As I stated it will not stop at the legalization marriage. All legal (whole different topic) tax paying citizens should have full rights to the laws of the land whether it be CU or M.
Let it be clear "horrible", "terrible" are words you used. I was simply stating what I have observed and read. I am not interested enough to study to subject. As BlackWomenblowthetrumpet stated people are going do what they WILL. And I don't know any of my Christian friends going around burning up gays homes or attacking them.
"To cast the church as being persecuted is a huge misrepresentation as well as a misuse of the word "persecute"." Probably the only word I misused was "church" because not all buildings that look like a church behave like one.
Thanks for the respectful dialogue.
adoreblkwm,
A return to the past when a woman couldn't even get a credit card in her own name would be horrible for sure. Marriage has been through some great changes over time, hasn't it.
It is fortunate that we are able to have thoughtful dialogue about this issue. It helps me to not be angry and try to understand where others are coming from. It's hard. There's a lot to be learned by us all.
Let me say one more time I am against discrimination of any kind especially against gays and lesbians.
With that said, I do not endorse the idea of redefining marriage. Jackie, Civil unions I can endorse with couples getting all the rights and privileges that's in a marriage. Marriage, is between a man and woman. Too me all other coupling are unions.
I am willing to continue fighting and showing support for gays and lesbians to have the same rights as any other American. I do believe I can be friends with gays and lesbians even if we don't agree on marriage.
I don't like the idea that the Black Church is being portrayed as the only institution against gays and lesbians. Which is just not true.
Jackie what if the wording for the gay agenda were careful looked into and worded so that any lay person can understand it?
I believe the black community will fight for the gay agenda once they understand it has nothing to do with their faith and it's more about a person rights.
Until, the debate and focus can move from the word "marriage" which most people see as having ties to the church the fight will be a hard fought battle.
I agree that universally recognized "civil unions" with ALL rights the same would be a positive step. I agree that the focus should be rights as a citizen and not based on faith. Which I'd like to remind folks is the same faith many gay people have, including me. I appreciate your support and respect your views. We can disagree, that's fine.
Ann, just so you'll know, the term "gay agenda" is offensive.
The term is primarily used by those who oppose gay rights. The claim that gays, lesbians and their supporters have some kind of a "master plan" to recruit kids and other foolishness and even involves getting guns and other such nonsense. It is mainly used as a fear tactic by the far right to scare people about gay rights laws. It was used often and successfully to discriminate against gay teachers. I think the term came from some book back in the 70's or 80's that does not in any way represent gay people in America. It's ridiculous.
Jackie thanks for the information I was unaware of the meaning and I will not use it again.
For those of you that believe that is a separation of church and state, none existed prior to the U. S. Supreme Court issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first ban came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. The misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists has been used legally and politically as a weapon of revisionism to change this nation from one based on Biblical doctrine to a secular nation. The faulty interpretation test of Jefferson’s opinion is used as the faulty interpretations of Scripture. Each drives a wedge between the implementation of law based on morality and the administration of people. Hence, we choose to implement immoral laws because they produce a more harmonious secular community.
For all of those that say they do not want to “ram their religion” or “force their beliefs” on someone else, that’s ok. People like Madalyn O’Hair will do it for you. American Christians, you have not suffered your beliefs unto blood as those in China and the Soviet Union. Keep on being passive like the wimpy Jesus that is preached to you on Sunday mornings [Forgot that he turned over the tables of moneychangers; Congress won’t even do that to AIG] and wake up to a new secular day in America.
Now for the HOMOSEXUAL LEGAL, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL AGENDA. Forgive me if I offend. Thank you Michael Baisden for making it abundantly clear to Black America that the Black Church has lost its moral authority upon selecting Barack Obama as its new Messiah. During one of your recent radio shows, you asked your audience, “Can you pray the gay out of somebody?” When a caller referred to her spiritual faith, you politely discarded that view by affirming the Black Church knew that Obama supported Gay Marriage and even played a clip from Barack Obama’s Victory speech to reaffirm your point. Some people say that radio is a thankless job. However, I say thank you, Mr. Baisden. You did more in one hour than Hannity and Rush did all year. You framed the picture as it is and not as we desire it to be.
The Black Church has lost its institutional moral authority. Pimped by social justice activists, massaged by the wealth of lobbying leftists and convicted by the philosophies of liberation theology–Marxism and socialism, ministers traded a GOSPEL covenant with destiny for an affair with history. It was so much more important to die knowing that you put a black man in the White House that you did not even stop to see the lipstick on your collar–the ramifications of your judgment. Why even your Word tells you to choose a man by his thoughts and actions and not by his outward appearance. But as the cigarette hangs from your lips and he drops the twenty on the table–even though you committed to a hundred, you begin to realize that the ONE that the prophet Oprah told you to pick does not seem to align himself with what you believe–abortion, infanticide, the first and second amendments. As you pull down your dress and adjust your stockings, he tells you that you will need to catch a cab to get out of this neighborhood by dusk. He can not take you home like he planned–give you that promised tax cut. As he struts towards his BMW, you think of how your innocence was taken and how you can’t tell anyone because of the sordid feelings of guilt and shame. Maybe you should call the cops–God! No, because then, you would have to admit that you were as guilty as he was. Maybe if I pray, I can walk out of this with my dignity and a chance at redemption. Yeah, I’ll just pray for him.
Moral authority is the quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct. No longer can the Black Minister stand before the congregation and say that homosexuality, adultery and other conduct that is offensive to the Gospel should be taken in consideration when developing political policies. The Humanist social agenda trumped any Christian agenda per the last election. If gays want to marry because Obama says its okay then, let them marry. If transgendered individuals want to use your restroom because Obama says its okay then, let it be. If GLBT agenda becomes constitutionally protected then, let it be. Esau traded his right to the Covenant for a bowl of soup. The Black Church traded its moral authority for the race of a new president and a promised tax cut. Every GLBT should go to a Black Church and thank “god” for the Esau spirit.
As for the ministers and congregants of the Black Churches that voted Obama into office, you will have a lot of explaining to do when God enters the cool of His Garden and asks how did you pass judgement on the Earth. I got news for you Reverend: the congregation will turn to God and say, “this minister you gave us told us to vote for Obama. Some helpmeet he turned out to be!”
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
@Kenneth thanks for your comment. The Black Church help shape our first black president therefore,and I believe she will always have power.
As for judgment, God got that taken care of every man he will judgment according to his work and deeds.
So I don't think you will be excused from that one weather you voted for Obama or not.
For Kenneth to make the assertion that the separation of church and state is a relatively recent occurrence is absolute garbage. Have you not read the Bill of Rights? The first amendment of our constitution clearly reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I am not sure from history book you were taught but ALL government scholars of which I have ever heard speak about the topic express it to be a well known fact that the 1st amendment of the constitution clearly establishes the pretext for the separation of church and state. The rulings which you mentioned clearly reaffirmed the interpretation of the 1st amendment as a separation of church and state.
Regarding you views on laws, government, and morality... Laws historically have been evaluated as being "just" or "unjust" but not "moral" or "immoral" since the latter two are primarily religious constructs. As a matter of fact, I think you would be very challenged to find either terms, "moral" or "immoral", within very many federal legislative government documents if any at all. Just a guess. All that other rhetoric you were spewing seems to be nothing more than mere conjecture to which I really don't have the time nor desire to discuss. Do your thing though. I suspect the only participant's attention you will get are those who already agree with your perspective. Those with a judicious ear know that debating with a religious zealot can prove to be as beneficial as discussing something of a serious nature with a drunkard or child. Both of who have little regards for critical retrospect.
"Democracy is moral before it is political."
Louis D. Brandeis,
Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941)
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is three-fold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
Joseph Stalin, former dictator of the Soviet Union
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"I believe that justice is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1823.
FOOLS, BABES AND DRUNKARDS, MAN!
FOOLS, BABES AND DRUNKARDS!
THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS!
The challenged was to "find either terms, "moral" or "immoral", within any federal legislative government documents." Simply because some historical figure cared to express an opinion using either term is very immaterial if there opinion is not written into law. Since you express yourself as well as you do I am sure you understand that. Once again can you find either term within any federal legislative government documents.? Based on your response I suspect that you can not, not only because you failed to cite any but also because there exist no legal measure within our judicial system for determining what is and what is not "moral" or "immoral". Both are religious constructs not legal. Having worked in law enforcement for approximately 8 yrs I am 100% certain that you will not find either terms "moral" or "immoral" in any county, state, or federal judicial code. Any person can go on Google as well and find just as many quotes contrary to the quotes you reference but that would not illustrate my point unless legal code or legislative documents were specifically cited. Now since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were very religious individuals which is in part or whole why you assert that the Constitution is a religious document, then why is there not a single reference to "god" or "morality" in the constitution? The absence of either term speaks volumes since religion was so important to both individuals (Adams and Thomas Jefferson). Adams and Thomas were only two of dozens of individuals who helps construct the Constitution. Other framers of the Constitution were quite openly hostile towards religion.
"Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression,"(James Madison)
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson)
Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947])
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" (Supreme Court)
Please note the year on the above quote since you stated that the separation of church and state didn't occur until 1962.
Nough said.
I appreciate your challenge. In all great humility, I firmly believe that iron sharpens iron. Not once have I challenged your intellect. Not once have I challenged your sobriety. Nor have I questioned the strength of your profession. In all truth, in my personal life, I count these all lost. They are mere grains of dust in the Hands of a Great God. However, I appreciate the veracity of your challenge. Your vitriol is laden with the pearls of wisdom from your personal experiences, your academic acumen and the summation of your knowledge and understanding.
However, I believe that you owe me an apology. The absence of the term of God by no means implies the absence of His Spirit. Please before you make the accusation that “God” is not present take some time to review the lives of those that wrote the US Constitution. In Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, you will find that many were ministers in their own right. Finally, in strategy, a poor tactic is to call your opponent out under the absolute rules of providing one proof. A single evidence to indicate one’s wisdom or foolishness brings even the most confident statistician worry. Indeed, but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Corinthians 1:27). Please check the guidelines of criminality as follows in 18 USC Chapter 117. I provided the citation for curiosity sake especially for those concerned about Google references.
I appreciate your challenge, thank you for your 1947 reference [which concurs with the theme of my original argument] and look forward to your humble apology. By the way, thank you for protecting and serving.
-CITE-
18 USC CHAPTER 117 - TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL
ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES 01/03/2007
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 117 - TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED
CRIMES
-HEAD-
CHAPTER 117 - TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND
RELATED CRIMES
-MISC1-
Sec.
2421. Transportation generally.
2422. Coercion and enticement.
2423. Transportation of minors.
2424. Filing factual statement about alien individual.
2425. Use of interstate facilities to transmit information
about a minor.
2426. Repeat offenders.
2427. Inclusion of offenses relating to child pornography in
definition of sexual activity for which any person
can be charged with a criminal offense.
2428. Forfeitures.
AMENDMENTS
2006 - Pub. L. 109-164, title I, Sec. 103(d)(2), Jan. 10, 2006,
119 Stat. 3563, added item 2428.
1998 - Pub. L. 105-314, title I, Secs. 101(b), 104(b), 105(b),
Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2975-2977, added items 2425, 2426, and
2427.
1988 - Pub. L. 100-690, title VII, Sec. 7071, Nov. 18, 1988, 102
Stat. 4405, substituted "individual" for "female" in item 2424.
1986 - Pub. L. 99-628, Sec. 5(a)(1), (b)(2), Nov. 7, 1986, 100
Stat. 3511, substituted "TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY
AND RELATED CRIMES" for "WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC" as chapter heading
and substituted "and enticement" for "or enticement of female" in
item 2422.
1978 - Pub. L. 95-225, Sec. 3(b), Feb. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 9,
substituted "Transportation of minors" for "Coercion or enticement
of minor female" in item 2423.
-End-
-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2421 01/03/2007
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 117 - TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED
CRIMES
-HEAD-
Sec. 2421. Transportation generally
-STATUTE-
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or
in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a
criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
-SOURCE-
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 812; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, Sec.
47, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 99-628, Sec. 5(b)(1), Nov. 7, 1986, 100
Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 105-314, title I, Sec. 106, Oct. 30, 1998, 112
Stat. 2977.)
-MISC1-
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
1948 ACT
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Secs. 397, 398, 401, 404
(June 25, 1910, ch. 395, Secs. 1, 2, 5, 8, 36 Stat. 825-827).
Section consolidates sections 397, 398, 401, and 404 of title 18,
U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Section 397 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., containing a
definition of the terms "interstate commerce" and "foreign
commerce" was omitted as unnecessary in view of the definition of
those terms in section 10 of this title.
Section 401 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., prescribing venue was
omitted as unnecessary in view of section 3237 of this title.
Section 403 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was omitted. No
definition of "Territory" is necessary to the revised section as it
is phrased. Construction therein of "person" is covered by section
1 of title 1, U.S.C., 1940 ed., General Provisions, as amended.
Last paragraph of said section relating to construction of this
chapter was omitted as surplusage.
Words "Possession of the United States" were inserted in three
places in view of mission of said section 403 of title 18, U.S.C.,
1940 ed., and, reference in that section to the Canal Zone is
covered by those words. This chapter applies to the Territory of
Hawaii. (See Sun Chong Lee v. United States, C.C.A. Hawaii, 1942,
125 F. 2d 95.)
Section 404 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., containing the short
title was omitted as not appropriate in a revision.
Reference to persons causing, procuring, aiding or assisting was
deleted as unnecessary because such persons are made principals by
section 2 of this title.
Words "and upon conviction thereof" were also deleted as
surplusage since punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is
secured.
Words "deemed guilty of a felony" were deleted as unnecessary in
view of the definition of a felony in section 1 of this title. (See
reviser's note under section 550 of this title.)
Minor changes were also made in translations and phraseology.
1949 ACT
This section [section 47] corrects a typographical error in
section 2421 of title 18, U.S.C.
AMENDMENTS
1998 - Pub. L. 105-314 inserted "or attempts to do so," before
"shall be fined" and substituted "10 years" for "five years".
1986 - Pub. L. 99-628 amended section generally. Prior to
amendment, section read as follows:
"Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce,
or in the District of Columbia or in any Territory or Possession of
the United States, any woman or girl for the purpose of
prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or
with the intent and purpose to induce, entice, or compel such woman
or girl to become a prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery,
or to engage in any other immoral practice; or
"Whoever knowingly procures or obtains any ticket or tickets, or
any form of transportation or evidence of the right thereto, to be
used by any woman or girl in interstate or foreign commerce, or in
the District of Columbia or any Territory or Possession of the
United States, in going to any place for the purpose of
prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or
with the intent or purpose on the part of such person to induce,
entice, or compel her to give herself up to the practice of
prostitution, or to give herself up to debauchery, or any other
immoral practice, whereby any such woman or girl shall be
transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District
of Columbia or any Territory or Possession of the United States -
"Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both."
1949 - Act May 24, 1949, corrected spelling of "induce".
-End-
Post a Comment
You can disagree or agree with me that's cool but you want disrespect me... If you don't like what I posted you don't have to leave a comment.